Boston.

For the ridiculously horrible review I have Boston's insanely incomprehensibly infrastructure of innavigatable roads, whitey-dominated sports bars, church-oriented noraebangs that lack the presence of alcoholic fuel, and snotty Harvard restaurants filled with pretentious future i-Bankers; I had an incredible weekend. It's a breath of fresh air to both escape the city (albeit to another) and reminisce with non-musicians regarding non-musical content for more than 24 hours at once. A healthy and slight reminder to myself that once upon a time, I was more than what I am now - meaning, I once could converse in non-music-related dialogue.

On a happier note, my deepest and warmest congratulations to Jenny Li on her beautiful wedding. Who woulda thunk? We've all come a long way.

A day at home spent with the New York Times archives. "Music; The Devil Made Him Do It" by Anthony Tommassini, and "Art and Politics."

Karlheinz Stockhausen.
A week after 9/11 in 2001, Karlheinz Stockhausen (as many of you may remember) released a statement during a press conference in Hamburg stating that the attack on the World Trade Center was "the greatest work of art that is possible in the whole cosmos," and that human minds achieved "something in one act" that "we couldn't dream of in music."

Personally, it's easy for me to discount all of these remarks as a fucked up statement from an aging-senile octogenarian whose egomaniacism has sunk him into a realm lightyears away from lucid reality. But should we discount such remarks so quickly? As Tommasini says, "perhaps Mr. Stockhausen is a raving has-been, whose words are best ignored. Still, it is important for artists to reclaim art from such reckless commentary, as Ligeti did recently in suggesting that Mr. Stockhausen be confined to a psychiatric clinic."

"Art may be hard to define, but whatever art is, it's a step removed from reality. A theatrical depiction of suffering may be art; real suffering is not. Because the art of photography often blurs this distinction, it can make us uncomfortable...The image of a naked, fleeing, napalm-burned Vietnamese girl is truth, not art. Images of the blazing twin towers, however horrifically compelling, are not art." -Tommassini.

Truth. Art is hard to define, and the advent of aleatory music and fluxus have made that distinction even harder - but aesthecizing reality, and further, aesthecizing terror, will always produce a very distinct line between art and lunacy. Mr. Stockhausen, may he rest in peace, is of the latter.

But then again, what of politics and music, and its inevitable connection with each other? Must the two coexist? As Michael Gordon claims, "what if I agree with your politics but I hate your art?" And to extrapolate a bit, what I don't agree with your politics but I respect/love your art? The latter is harder to justify.

"I’m not suggesting that we do this anymore than I would suggest you search through your refrigerator and find out the politics of the farmer who grew your broccoli."

Well, I love the music of Charles Wuorinen, but I don't ever want to meet him - a self-involved egomaniacal Republican with an uncanny ability to proselytize eloquently and effectively, who oddly (in the our field of music), is a staunch pro-Bush/pro-War supporter. Too often, the politics of ultra left-wing post-modern artists hurt me by producing horrible works of music; I'm hurt since bad art, ignorance, and stupidity should never enter the realm of left-wing; it makes us weaker than we already are.

I'm happy that we still have artists out there who continually fight for the liberal aesthetic, and the music of Frederic Rzewski, Steve Reich, Terry Riley, and George Crumb will always be top form in both its message, meaning, content, and music.

That being said, and on the eve of a performance and presentation I must give tomorrow on Karlheinz Stockhausen, these two aspects of art torture me. For a man who has pioneered such incredibly intelligent eras of aleatory music, electronic music, blended elements of serialism - I really hate him.

I might one day change my mind, but I can't see it happening.

cerebral vs. non-cerebral art/music.

It irks me a bit that 20th/21st century music has become so distinctly divisive amongst artists and musicians - why must cerebral and non-cerebral music be so absolutely mutually-exclusive in the performance world? Does post-modernism necessarily negate the veracity of post-serialism, or for that matter, vice-versa? If one enjoys Carter, must that distinctly and directly affect one's appreciation for John Adams or Terry Riley? Must all expressionists idealogy conflict with neo-romanticism and tonality in general? I don't entirely understand.

Camps. I don't like camps, but it's impossible to escape them. I don't mean summer camps, but rather schools of thought. Marlboro and Chamber Music Society of Lincoln Center for example, are known for "championing" 20th and 21st century music, yet the only realm of thought in the programming seems to be based in Elliot Carter, Ralph Shapey, Charles Wuorinen, Mario Davidovsky, Milton Babbitt and the like. What happened to post-modernism, aleatoric music, minimalism, and the avant-garde? (Sorry, Mikey)

I don't like to view my own mind-frame as falling into either of these respective camps, particularly since I enjoy both types of music. To fall into a camp (I feel) is intellectually oppressive and altogether limiting an entire breadth of emotional humanity in art.

Cerebral music.

Pros: Generally, extremely complex and more often than not, absolute (as opposed to programmatic). Explores sonority, organization, and structure in a realm that entirely eliminates the hierarchy of pitch. Extreme freedom from tonality and usually based in an intellectual demonstration of complex rhythm patterns, mathematical phasing of sets, etc. Luigi Nono; experimentation with the use of rhythmic pattern set to match the Fibonacci series; to arguably create a tangible connection between the complexity of music/art and basic human function to an audience's ear. Carter; metric modulation and musical set theory. Babbitt; combinatoriality and time-point.

Cons: Intellectually oppressive (a minimalist's and Dadaist's complaint). Disconnected from a direct programmatic meaning, since absolute music "means" nothing, per se. It would be impossible for a cerebral composer to write, for example, a eulogy or symphonic work of much heartfelt meaning and effect on say, the tragedy of 9/11. For that, you need a John Adams or an Arvo Part to give you the transmigration of souls in musical simplicity.

Post-modern non-cerebral music.

Pros: Easily accessible and generally based in simplicity. Minimalism, for an example, was a direct counter-attack to expressionism, claiming it was for the most part, intellectually-oppressive (I keep using this term like I agree with it - I really don't). Usually programmatic, sometimes tonal, always inventive. Also, FUN (this is key). Dadaism and Fluxus for example, were formed on the rebellious pretense that logic, reason, structure, and cerebral thought had basically lead our society to destruction and war. Non-cerebral music carries with it, meaning and subtext - and definitely something to talk about.

Cons: Is it art? This question always comes up. Fluxus, for example, is pretty much attacked by every non-artist who reads about it. Minimalism can be a bore. Many times, post-modernism and the avant-garde go too far into a laughable territory that affects the reputations of not only the artist, but those of us performers and thinkers who fight for the art we make. When Christo put up "The Gates" in Central Park, it was the largest object of art-ridicule in the country - is that because a mass-audience doesn't understand site-specific art installation aesthetics, or is it because "The Gates" was one big pile of post-modern trash? Some Fluxus performance art calls for a cow to be dropped from a helicopter onto a building. Other post-modern music demands for newspapers to be shredded into a piano. Lamont Young's minimalist concerts sometimes go on for 17 hours of inane monotony. "Chance music" and Cage is attacked to this very day, the former for being bullshit and the latter for being one big phony charlatan. Ned Rorem is attacked by nearly every cerebral composer for his unashamed use of french-tonality and unabashed sentiment. Liebermann is constantly accused of sounding entirely unoriginal.

In writing this post, it already appears as though I'm advocating for readers to take a side. I'm not; quite the contrary.

Let's open our minds. Explore. Use our brains, and our hearts. The two are not mutually exclusive.

I practiced 8 hours yesterday. Why? I don't know.

So I go to the Juilliard Health Office and I tell them that my throat hurts to the point where I am unable to drink, smoke, or eat anything tangible other than the broth from a soup.

To my utter dismay, they carry nothing but Advil and condoms, neither of which, unfortunately, will do anything rehabilitative for my throat, but might instead perhaps be used in some retarded combo-pack someday when I have a bad hangover and need to have sex, simultaneously of course.

Sometimes life is retarded. Like the automated toilet flushers that never flush when you stand up and finish, but react to every subtle movement that your ass hole makes mid-shit.

Now, come to think of it. I just made a hell of a lot of errors in that last post. Split infinitives; are they wrong? What about Star Trek's slogan? "To boldly go..."

I don't understand grammar or english for that matter.

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." -Hamlet, Shakespeare.

Am I the only one to ever notice the grammatical flaw in perhaps the most famous quote in English Lit? Or am I wrong?

There are more things in heaven and ON earth, right? Things aren't IN earth.

"...and lead me not into temptation, but deliver me from evil..."